Discoverability in Motor Vehicle Accident Cases

Table of Contents

Previously I have written about limitation periods and starting lawsuits against defendants within the basic presumptive two year limitation period. The recent case of St Marthe v O’Connor[1] confirms the law regarding discoverability in motor vehicle accident cases.

In St Marthe, the plaintiff was 33 years old when he was riding his bicycle and struck by a motor vehicle on November 9, 2011. He suffered a soft tissue injury to his back that did not heal. About three years and eight months after the accident, on July 14, 2015, he started a lawsuit. The lawsuit was commenced beyond the two year limitation period prescribed in the Limitations Act, 2002. Nevertheless, after a trial at the end of 2018, the plaintiff was successful in recovering damages. How?

The plaintiff relied upon the discoverability principle codified in the Limitations Act, 2002. In a personal injury claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident, a plaintiff will not have discovered his claim until he knows that he has a substantial chance to succeed in recovering a judgment for damages. This involves both a consideration of the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act and whether the plaintiff is aware that he has suffered a permanent and serious injury.

In this case, Aviva, the insurer defending the claim, argued that the plaintiff should have known or, alternatively, with reasonable diligence would have discovered that he suffered a permanent, serious injury two years before he started his lawsuit. The court found there to be a “patent incongruity” in the defendant’s legal position because the defence also argued that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent, serious injury. As a result, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim was not statute barred because he did not have the requisite knowledge that his injury could be permanent and serious until, at the earliest, November 2014.

The court awarded the plaintiff general damages of about $70,000 gross (about $32,000 net of approximately $38,000 deductible), damages for loss of income of about $128,000 and housekeeping and home maintenance expenses of about $45,000.

The court also gave special recognition to the defence medical expert who displayed an exemplary commitment to independence and impartiality.

If you or a loved one have sustained an injury and would like more information about your legal options, we can help. Call the Jasmine Daya & Co. team at (416) 967-9100 or contact us online to schedule a free consultation.

 

 

[1] St Marthe v O’Connor, 2019 ONSC 1585.

AUTHOR

asphalt automobile automotive 125514

MORE ARTICLES

NMLS, TILA, RESPA, DSCR… What Do They Mean? A Canadian Private Lender’s Guide to Speaking American

One of the biggest surprises Canadian private lenders encounter when expanding into the United States isn't the legal system, it’s

READ ARTICLE →

Judicial vs. Non-Judicial Foreclosure: What Canadian Lenders Need to Know About the U.S. System

For Canadian private lenders looking to expand into the United States, one of the biggest surprises is often the foreclosure

READ ARTICLE →

How Long Does It Take for a Canadian Private Lender to Expand into the United States?

One of the first questions Canadian private lenders ask me is surprisingly simple: "Okay, Jasmine. If we decide we want

READ ARTICLE →

How Canadian Mortgage Brokers Can Legally Fund U.S. Business-Purpose Loans

For decades, Canadian mortgage brokers have built successful businesses helping clients navigate an increasingly competitive lending landscape. But as more

READ ARTICLE →

Canadian Capital vs. American Capital: Can Canadian Private Lenders Raise Money From Both to Fund U.S. Deals?

One of the most common misconceptions I hear from Canadian private lenders looking to expand into the United States is

READ ARTICLE →